A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constituti

ExpressLane

Verified User
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constitutional



I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



Although I often wish that Donald Trump would shut up, he has a constitutional right not to. A federal judge went too far in restricting his free expression Monday when she imposed a gag order on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Washington prosecution of Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, ordered him to refrain from rhetoric targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as inflammatory statements about likely witnesses.

Chutkan issued the order in response to a motion from special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has said on social media that Smith is “deranged,” that the judge is “a radical Obama hack” and that the court system is “rigged.” He has also attacked potential witnesses such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in announcing her decision from the bench. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She added that Trump’s presidential candidacy “does not give him carte blanche” to threaten public servants. The judge said that “1st Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.

Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.


Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified...

==========================




This is the guy that wrote this article.


Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he also served as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law from 2008 to 2017.[1][2]

Chemerinsky was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2016. The National Jurist magazine named him the most influential person in legal education in the United States in 2017.[3] In 2021 Chemerinsky was named President-elect of the Association of American Law Schools.

Early life and education
Chemerinsky was born in 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. He grew up in a working-class Jewish family in the South Side of Chicago and attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school.[4] He studied communications at Northwestern University, where he competed on the debate team. He graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science, summa cum laude. Chemerinsky then attended Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He graduated with a Juris Doctor, cum laude, in 1978.

Professional career
After law school, Chemerinsky worked as an honors attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division from 1978 to 1979, then entered private practice at the Washington, D.C., law firm Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt.[5] In 1980, Chemerinsky was hired as an assistant professor of law at DePaul University College of Law. He moved to the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1983. Chemerinsky taught at USC from 1983 to 2004, then joined the faculty of Duke University School of Law.

In 2008, Chemerinsky was named the inaugural dean of the newly established University of California, Irvine School of Law. In 2017, he became dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he is also the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law.[6]

Chemerinsky has published eleven books (three of which have been printed in multiple editions) and over 200 law review articles.[citation needed] He also writes a regular column for the Sacramento Bee and a monthly column for the ABA Journal and Los Angeles Daily Journal, and frequently pens op-eds for prominent newspapers across the country.[citation needed] Chemerinsky has also argued several cases at the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Apel, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Lockyer v. Andrade. and Van Orden v. Perry, and has written numerous amicus briefs....




===================
Clearly the wacko DC Judge Tanya Chutkan does not know the Law.
 
Last edited:
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constitutional



I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



Although I often wish that Donald Trump would shut up, he has a constitutional right not to. A federal judge went too far in restricting his free expression Monday when she imposed a gag order on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Washington prosecution of Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, ordered him to refrain from rhetoric targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as inflammatory statements about likely witnesses.

Chutkan issued the order in response to a motion from special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has said on social media that Smith is “deranged,” that the judge is “a radical Obama hack” and that the court system is “rigged.” He has also attacked potential witnesses such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in announcing her decision from the bench. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She added that Trump’s presidential candidacy “does not give him carte blanche” to threaten public servants. The judge said that “1st Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.

Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.


Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified...

==========================




This is the guy that wrote this article.


Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he also served as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law from 2008 to 2017.[1][2]

Chemerinsky was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2016. The National Jurist magazine named him the most influential person in legal education in the United States in 2017.[3] In 2021 Chemerinsky was named President-elect of the Association of American Law Schools.

Early life and education
Chemerinsky was born in 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. He grew up in a working-class Jewish family in the South Side of Chicago and attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school.[4] He studied communications at Northwestern University, where he competed on the debate team. He graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science, summa cum laude. Chemerinsky then attended Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He graduated with a Juris Doctor, cum laude, in 1978.

Professional career
After law school, Chemerinsky worked as an honors attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division from 1978 to 1979, then entered private practice at the Washington, D.C., law firm Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt.[5] In 1980, Chemerinsky was hired as an assistant professor of law at DePaul University College of Law. He moved to the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1983. Chemerinsky taught at USC from 1983 to 2004, then joined the faculty of Duke University School of Law.

In 2008, Chemerinsky was named the inaugural dean of the newly established University of California, Irvine School of Law. In 2017, he became dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he is also the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law.[6]

Chemerinsky has published eleven books (three of which have been printed in multiple editions) and over 200 law review articles.[citation needed] He also writes a regular column for the Sacramento Bee and a monthly column for the ABA Journal and Los Angeles Daily Journal, and frequently pens op-eds for prominent newspapers across the country.[citation needed] Chemerinsky has also argued several cases at the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Apel, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Lockyer v. Andrade. and Van Orden v. Perry, and has written numerous amicus briefs....




===================
Clearly the wacko DC Judge Tanya Chutkan does not know the Law.


Least according to one Erwin Chemerinsky, who also defends those demonstrating for Hamas on the same principle, bet you wouldn’t agree with him on that one (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article280597364.html)

Erwin is a free speech advocate, regardless of the specific circumstances, of course he would think the gag order violates the First Amendment, obviously, the Judge doesn’t, and fact remains if it were any other person other than your Messiah that person wouldn’t be subject to just a $5,000 fine

Bottom line, the MAGA militia truly believes Trump is above all law, that if he did shoot someone on 5th Ave in daylight they would still vote for him regardless
 
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constitutional



I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



Although I often wish that Donald Trump would shut up, he has a constitutional right not to. A federal judge went too far in restricting his free expression Monday when she imposed a gag order on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Washington prosecution of Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, ordered him to refrain from rhetoric targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as inflammatory statements about likely witnesses.

Chutkan issued the order in response to a motion from special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has said on social media that Smith is “deranged,” that the judge is “a radical Obama hack” and that the court system is “rigged.” He has also attacked potential witnesses such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in announcing her decision from the bench. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She added that Trump’s presidential candidacy “does not give him carte blanche” to threaten public servants. The judge said that “1st Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.

Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.


Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified...

==========================




This is the guy that wrote this article.


Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he also served as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law from 2008 to 2017.[1][2]

Chemerinsky was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2016. The National Jurist magazine named him the most influential person in legal education in the United States in 2017.[3] In 2021 Chemerinsky was named President-elect of the Association of American Law Schools.

Early life and education
Chemerinsky was born in 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. He grew up in a working-class Jewish family in the South Side of Chicago and attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school.[4] He studied communications at Northwestern University, where he competed on the debate team. He graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science, summa cum laude. Chemerinsky then attended Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He graduated with a Juris Doctor, cum laude, in 1978.

Professional career
After law school, Chemerinsky worked as an honors attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division from 1978 to 1979, then entered private practice at the Washington, D.C., law firm Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt.[5] In 1980, Chemerinsky was hired as an assistant professor of law at DePaul University College of Law. He moved to the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1983. Chemerinsky taught at USC from 1983 to 2004, then joined the faculty of Duke University School of Law.

In 2008, Chemerinsky was named the inaugural dean of the newly established University of California, Irvine School of Law. In 2017, he became dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he is also the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law.[6]

Chemerinsky has published eleven books (three of which have been printed in multiple editions) and over 200 law review articles.[citation needed] He also writes a regular column for the Sacramento Bee and a monthly column for the ABA Journal and Los Angeles Daily Journal, and frequently pens op-eds for prominent newspapers across the country.[citation needed] Chemerinsky has also argued several cases at the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Apel, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Lockyer v. Andrade. and Van Orden v. Perry, and has written numerous amicus briefs....




===================
Clearly the wacko DC Judge Tanya Chutkan does not know the Law.


So bail conditions are not constitutional? Nobody can be held pre-trial?
 
I wish the former President the best of luck appealing this ruling. He has zero chance of success.

He has chosen to avoid being incarcerated. In doing so, he has agreed to the conditions of his release. Deal with it.
 
Trump commits so many crimes in public. He has done what no court can allow. You try creaming the court system, judges, and jurors in public, then you will have to clear out your schedule for jail time. Trump is doing what no person can be allowed to do.
 
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constitutional



I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



Although I often wish that Donald Trump would shut up, he has a constitutional right not to. A federal judge went too far in restricting his free expression Monday when she imposed a gag order on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Washington prosecution of Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, ordered him to refrain from rhetoric targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as inflammatory statements about likely witnesses.

Chutkan issued the order in response to a motion from special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has said on social media that Smith is “deranged,” that the judge is “a radical Obama hack” and that the court system is “rigged.” He has also attacked potential witnesses such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in announcing her decision from the bench. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She added that Trump’s presidential candidacy “does not give him carte blanche” to threaten public servants. The judge said that “1st Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.

Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.


Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified...

==========================




This is the guy that wrote this article.


Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he also served as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law from 2008 to 2017.[1][2]

Chemerinsky was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2016. The National Jurist magazine named him the most influential person in legal education in the United States in 2017.[3] In 2021 Chemerinsky was named President-elect of the Association of American Law Schools.

Early life and education
Chemerinsky was born in 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. He grew up in a working-class Jewish family in the South Side of Chicago and attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school.[4] He studied communications at Northwestern University, where he competed on the debate team. He graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science, summa cum laude. Chemerinsky then attended Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He graduated with a Juris Doctor, cum laude, in 1978.

Professional career
After law school, Chemerinsky worked as an honors attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division from 1978 to 1979, then entered private practice at the Washington, D.C., law firm Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt.[5] In 1980, Chemerinsky was hired as an assistant professor of law at DePaul University College of Law. He moved to the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1983. Chemerinsky taught at USC from 1983 to 2004, then joined the faculty of Duke University School of Law.

In 2008, Chemerinsky was named the inaugural dean of the newly established University of California, Irvine School of Law. In 2017, he became dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he is also the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law.[6]

Chemerinsky has published eleven books (three of which have been printed in multiple editions) and over 200 law review articles.[citation needed] He also writes a regular column for the Sacramento Bee and a monthly column for the ABA Journal and Los Angeles Daily Journal, and frequently pens op-eds for prominent newspapers across the country.[citation needed] Chemerinsky has also argued several cases at the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Apel, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Lockyer v. Andrade. and Van Orden v. Perry, and has written numerous amicus briefs....




===================
Clearly the wacko DC Judge Tanya Chutkan does not know the Law.


Publication of the Pentagon Papers served a public purpose and put no one's personal safety at risk. We'll see if shutting up a criminal defendant from inciting violence against the court in which he is being tried falls into that category. Maybe it does. There's an obvious argument it does not.
 
Publication of the Pentagon Papers served a public purpose and put no one's personal safety at risk. We'll see if shutting up a criminal defendant from inciting violence against the court in which he is being tried falls into that category. Maybe it does. There's an obvious argument it does not.
The SCOTUS has already said freedom of speech can't be abridged to protect government officials. Professor Chemerinsky is MUCH more qualified on Constitutional law than Judge Tanya Chutkan is. He has published multiple books on Constitutional law and has argued several cases before the SCOTUS. And he is the Dean of the University of Berkeley Law School.
 
Last edited:
I wish the former President the best of luck appealing this ruling. He has zero chance of success.

He has chosen to avoid being incarcerated. In doing so, he has agreed to the conditions of his release. Deal with it.
The conditions of his release did not include a gag order that came afterwards. Now sober up and get ready for your lunch dinner deliveries. And take a shower. Customers are complaining. You wouldn't want Uber Eats to fire you and not be able to make your trailer rent.
 
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constitutional



I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



Although I often wish that Donald Trump would shut up, he has a constitutional right not to. A federal judge went too far in restricting his free expression Monday when she imposed a gag order on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Washington prosecution of Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, ordered him to refrain from rhetoric targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as inflammatory statements about likely witnesses.

Chutkan issued the order in response to a motion from special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has said on social media that Smith is “deranged,” that the judge is “a radical Obama hack” and that the court system is “rigged.” He has also attacked potential witnesses such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” Chutkan said in announcing her decision from the bench. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.” She added that Trump’s presidential candidacy “does not give him carte blanche” to threaten public servants. The judge said that “1st Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses.”

I certainly understand Chutkan’s desire to limit such speech, and this is obviously a unique case with no similar precedents. But basic 1st Amendment principles cast serious doubt on the judge’s order.



The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In New York Times Co. vs. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.

Even more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. vs. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.


Although the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified...

==========================




This is the guy that wrote this article.


Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he also served as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law from 2008 to 2017.[1][2]

Chemerinsky was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2016. The National Jurist magazine named him the most influential person in legal education in the United States in 2017.[3] In 2021 Chemerinsky was named President-elect of the Association of American Law Schools.

Early life and education
Chemerinsky was born in 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. He grew up in a working-class Jewish family in the South Side of Chicago and attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school.[4] He studied communications at Northwestern University, where he competed on the debate team. He graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science, summa cum laude. Chemerinsky then attended Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He graduated with a Juris Doctor, cum laude, in 1978.

Professional career
After law school, Chemerinsky worked as an honors attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division from 1978 to 1979, then entered private practice at the Washington, D.C., law firm Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt.[5] In 1980, Chemerinsky was hired as an assistant professor of law at DePaul University College of Law. He moved to the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1983. Chemerinsky taught at USC from 1983 to 2004, then joined the faculty of Duke University School of Law.

In 2008, Chemerinsky was named the inaugural dean of the newly established University of California, Irvine School of Law. In 2017, he became dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he is also the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law.[6]

Chemerinsky has published eleven books (three of which have been printed in multiple editions) and over 200 law review articles.[citation needed] He also writes a regular column for the Sacramento Bee and a monthly column for the ABA Journal and Los Angeles Daily Journal, and frequently pens op-eds for prominent newspapers across the country.[citation needed] Chemerinsky has also argued several cases at the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Apel, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. Lockyer v. Andrade. and Van Orden v. Perry, and has written numerous amicus briefs....




===================
Clearly the wacko DC Judge Tanya Chutkan does not know the Law.


Funny how RW asswipes hate liberal, activist lawyers until they need to love them.
 
So bail conditions are not constitutional? Nobody can be held pre-trial?
Trump was gagged illegally. The court has to follow the Constitution. Do you think you are more verse in Constitutional law than Constitutional Law Professor and Berkeley Law School Dean Chemerinsky. How many books on the subject of Constitutional law have you published?
 
Funny how RW asswipes hate liberal, activist lawyers until they need to love them.
I have always thought Dershowitz was honest and ethical even if he is a liberal. Its funny how Libratards like you are all for lawyers until one stands up for the Constitution.
 
Here’s what Chemerinsky left out regarding the extraordinary and compelling argument.

What’s extraordinary? That the person we’re talking about isn’t just your average paper or reporter. He’s the ex-President of the United States and leading candidate. He has a voice much louder and stronger than almost anyone else.

What’s compelling? It’s well known and been reported by many people, including another previous presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, that when Trump starts targeting individuals with his vitriol, the death threats start pouring in. Judges have experienced it. Lawyers have experienced it. Members of Congress have experienced it.

There’s the extraordinary and compelling. Easy argument to make. Easy gag order to withstand challenge.
 
I have always thought Dershowitz was honest and ethical even if he is a liberal. Its funny how Libratards like you are all for lawyers until one stands up for the Constitution.

Dershowitz is looney tunes these days. Don’t exactly know when he went off the tracks. Maybe around OJ or so.
 
The SCOTUS has already said freedom of speech can't be abridged to protect government officials. Professor Chemerinsky is MUCH more qualified on Constitutional law than Judge Tanya Chutkan is. He has published multiple books on Constitutional law and has argued several cases before the SCOTUS. And he is the Dean of the University of Berkeley Law School.

He might be on Constitutional theory, but not necessarily on its application, and as I showed you, he also defends those demonstrating for Hamas on the same principle, you telling us now that you think he is he is 100% correct there also because he is qualified and an expert? (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed...280597364.html)

Erwin is a free speech advocate, regardless of the specific circumstances, of course he would think the gag order violates the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean his opinion is infallible
 
I have always thought Dershowitz was honest and ethical even if he is a liberal. Its funny how Libratards like you are all for lawyers until one stands up for the Constitution.

Dershowitz isn’t liberal, he isn’t anything, his only motivation is getting paid, he’ll be anything anyone wants him to be if you pay him
 
The SCOTUS has already said freedom of speech can't be abridged to protect government officials. Professor Chemerinsky is MUCH more qualified on Constitutional law than Judge Tanya Chutkan is. He has published multiple books on Constitutional law and has argued several cases before the SCOTUS. And he is the Dean of the University of Berkeley Law School.

Was he speaking in a context of the only apparent intent of the speech being intimidation of and/or bodily harm to government officials?
 
Good luck with SCOTUS. You'll need it. I doubt they will even hear the case, the argument is so incredibly stupid. The rest of this discussion is an utter waste of time. The Trump cult are the biggest whiny crybabies I've ever encountered.
 
Good luck with SCOTUS. You'll need it. I doubt they will even hear the case, the argument is so incredibly stupid. The rest of this discussion is an utter waste of time. The Trump cult are the biggest whiny crybabies I've ever encountered.

They get it from the top crybaby himself. Has there ever been a bigger case of it on the national stage than Trump's crybaby hysterics at getting wiped out in the 2020 election? He lost by the same electoral college 302/238 margin he called "a landslide" when
he defeated Hillary.
 
Back
Top